If you look at the thread in this fashion, without the historical drama.

Bush makes a statement about radical Muslims.

In a discussion on politics X brings up this statement but does not make the clear reference to "radicals".

Y then points out the error and explains there are good and bad in that religion.

Z then agrees with the statement and explanation of Y on radicals, not of the original statement.

ZA then attacks Z stating they support Bush and agree with the statement on radical Muslims.

Z states they have never referenced Bush at all, which would be the case.

Z then points out their first statement disagreed with Bush's statement and thus disproves the claim, which is also the case and which does not refute the claim made prior that they had not referenced Bush because the reference did not happen until after the statement and was made toward a separate claim.

This is just a possible as any other claim which can be made concerning the references based upon personal belief. The problem is that personal beliefs do not make a proof where other just as likely explanations also apply.

So sianblooz was referring to wjim's post about trophy hunting?

This is one example on why it's important to quote when responding to posts/people here and when you use quotes, to include the person's handle.

Sianblooz who the hell were you responding to Watson or wijim??? I'm back to being confused again after Wayne's W, G, S, D, J post.

See this was smoke and mirrors by Wayne to try and cover the fact he is wrong. W could stand for Watson or wijim, so saying S is talking about W doesn't say anything. W could even be Wayne, which makes it even more confusing.

It was clearly stated for all to see ...

(W was Watson and J was Wijim) I am getting tired of typing out the names over and over and over and over and over .. what was I saying again?)

Quote:

The confession is there for all to see.

The butler did it in the study with a candlestick?

Quote:

Quote:

You have never seen me write one word about Watson.

Quote:

If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.

But it seems only a DNA test will make some folks happy.

AHA another error!!! If he has no brain there is no way to get DNA from it .... If the statement is to be checked for DNA there have been too many others handling it to prevent cross contamination. Maybe a Medium or even a Large will help?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

If you look at the thread in this fashion, without the historical drama.

Bush makes a statement about radical Muslims.

In a discussion on politics X brings up this statement but does not make the clear reference to "radicals".

Y then points out the error and explains there are good and bad in that religion.

Z then agrees with the statement and explanation of Y on radicals, not of the original statement.

ZA then attacks Z stating they support Bush and agree with the statement on radical Muslims.

Z states they have never referenced Bush at all, which would be the case.

Z then points out their first statement disagreed with Bush's statement and thus disproves the claim, which is also the case and which does not refute the claim made prior that they had not referenced Bush because the reference did not happen until after the statement and was made toward a separate claim.

The comparisson is not accurate.

Grace posted what Watson said, and was clear about what he said. She may not have totally understood it, but posted it accurately.

In your example

Quote:

In a discussion on politics X brings up this statement but does not make the clear reference to "radicals".

X makes a mistake and does not clearly reference what was orginally said.

Grace did not do that here.

_________________I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

3. The only place where sianblooz and Watson disagree is on trophy hunters, which is at the start of the thread. So there can be no misunderstanding what the disagreement is about. Or the fact that sianblooz did in fact write one word about Watson. Just saying he doesn't notice that I disagree with Watson is in fact writing one word about Watson.

You know I'm just keeping this up because I like putting sianblooz's quotes up there all the time.

This does not follow the context of the thread.

If G makes a statement about W which mistates that original statement.

J corrects the oversight to G on the original statement with an explanation.

S makes a statement to G agreeing with the observation of the explanation.

At this point the statement is not about W but J, correct?

D now makes a statement about S and claims S views W as a hero and would use the original statement similarly.

S then points out the original statement by W does not agree with the original statement by S thus showing disagreement between the two.

There is no logical way to remove the added questions, statements, and comparisons to "prove" the original statement was made about W instead of J. It is an assumption stated as fact and is not possible to prove unless one wishes to believe one way or the other for other reasons.

The only reason I keep responding is to show the flaws in the logic being presented as this discussion is meaningless otherwise. Neither Donnie or Wijim would believe anything Sainblooz says whether it is the truth or not, so there is no reason to waste time there. However, those on the edges may still be able to see clearly enough to understand the errors of assuming beliefs are facts especially when those beliefs are rushed.

Or one could accept your periferal vision as legitmet but that would be a strertch Wayne. Sianblooz was refererencing trophy hun ting as presented by Watson despite your smoke & mirrors nonsense . Get over yourself.

That is your OPINION which you present as fact. Only Sianblooz knows for sure and for the rest of us there is a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Unless you have some magical powers you cannot prove your assumptions to any reasonable level of proof. That leaves you with a credibility problem, IMO. You may want to get over it yourself in the process.

Nah Wayne. I think your own vindictivness is bringing your credability into focus.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Incredible to me that no matter what people say, in IM or on the board, that they would have the nerve to demand and expect an answer to whatever their whims made them ask. Those who think I should obey these demands can go do an unnatural act to themselves.

This is all real simple. Read my posts. Read Wayne's posts. If I now say I was referring to one or the other, half of you will say its not true. Doesn't matter what I more say, you'll lie if you want to. So no. I won't follow orders and I won't keep adding to this shit for the next 25 pages or so.

buncha @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@- they need to turn off their computers and get a real life

Last edited by sianblooz on Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well I have to go to work. I sure hope you guys get this all straightened out by the time I get back. I need to go turkey hunting when I get back this afternoon, so I don't want to take too much time posting sianblooz's statement about Donnie playing with his brain.

By the way Wayne it is clear sianblooz was talking about Watson. Sianblooz has contributed to this thread after out discussion and could have easily said I was talking about wijim and not Watson. But that didn't happen. Why? Could it be that would be a lie, and sianblooz doesn't want to get caught lieing. So instead there is a reference to you coming out ahead in the discussion, which is not really telling a lie, but not really telling the truth either. And it gives the appearence you are right, while not really saying I am wrong. Sianblooz must be a politician.

Edited to add, Sianblooz's last statement confirms this.

I rest my case.

_________________I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Last edited by hunter88 on Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you look at the thread in this fashion, without the historical drama.

Bush makes a statement about radical Muslims.

In a discussion on politics X brings up this statement but does not make the clear reference to "radicals".

Y then points out the error and explains there are good and bad in that religion.

Z then agrees with the statement and explanation of Y on radicals, not of the original statement.

ZA then attacks Z stating they support Bush and agree with the statement on radical Muslims.

Z states they have never referenced Bush at all, which would be the case.

Z then points out their first statement disagreed with Bush's statement and thus disproves the claim, which is also the case and which does not refute the claim made prior that they had not referenced Bush because the reference did not happen until after the statement and was made toward a separate claim.

The comparisson is not accurate.

Grace posted what Watson said, and was clear about what he said. She may not have totally understood it, but posted it accurately.

But not in the following discussions she did not when she included meat in the "trophy" aspect. You cannot take the individual posts in a vacuum in such an exchange.

Quote:

Then they should modify their statement to exclude gathering. The point is, however, it's an excuse and really doesn't fly if they're not including the gathering too. Meats are also readily available in grocery stores. They won't die of starvation w/o venison on their plate.

Quote:

In your example

Quote:

In a discussion on politics X brings up this statement but does not make the clear reference to "radicals".

X makes a mistake and does not clearly reference what was orginally said.

Grace did not do that here.

I condensed the short series of posts assuming that would be understood, but it seems it was not.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Well I have to go to work. I sure hope you guys get this all straightened out by the time I get back. I need to go turkey hunting when I get back this afternoon, so I don't want to take too much time posting sianblooz's statement about Donnie playing with his brain.

By the way Wayne it is clear sianblooz was talking about Watson. Sianblooz has contributed to this thread after out discussion and could have easily said I was talking about wijim and not Watson.

After the series of attack posts? The focus was anger and the multitude of other claims added at that time.

Quote:

But that didn't happen. Why? Could it be that would be a lie, and sianblooz doesn't want to get caught lieing.

How can anyone be caught in a lie when it is their own mindset being discussed. I can believe whatever was said would be called a lie given the nature of the posts.

Quote:

So instead there is a reference to you coming out ahead in the discussion, which is not really telling a lie, but not really telling the truth either. And it gives the appearence you are right, while not really saying I am wrong. Sianblooz must be a politician.

Or just toying with the folks who jumped in with both feet.

Quote:

Edited to add, Sianblooz's last statement confirms this.

I rest my case.

How does this statement confirm or deny your belief? It would have been the case no matter what, IMO. The funny thing is the lack of proof is ignored on one side but accepted on the other based on personal belief ... I believe I have noted a double standard before.

Quote:

If I now say I was referring to one or the other, half of you will say its not true. Doesn't matter what I more say, you'll lie if you want to.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Tell you what. If Donnie posts links to where I talked about Watson on other boards as he claims I have, and links to where I called him a "hero" as he claims I am, and links to where I say all hunters are like trophy hunters, or what the hell, if Donnie can produce a link to any one of his lies, I'll answer any (STUPID) questions asked.

hunter88, I'm not even going to ask how the hell my own opinions can be a lie. LOLOLOL

Incredible to me that no matter what people say, in IM or on the board, that they would have the nerve to demand and expect an answer to whatever their whims made them ask. Those who think I should obey these demands can go do an unnatural act to themselves.

Can you point out demands here, sianblooz? Are you referring to my question, asking to whom you were responding? If so, do you think asking a question is nervy and demanding?